The reason bars bore you, is probably that you lack the social skills.
Practice happens to be a way to develop skills.
It boils down to the fact that you aren’t willing to pay the price of experiencing some boredom to develop social skills.
It simply a silly constraint.
As Christian Szegedy wrote above, bars where there’s partner dancing such as Salsa, Swing or Tango are probably the best way.
You even have a lot of precedural stuff to keep your mind occupied (not feel boredom) when you concentrate on dancing stuff.
In some sense a lot of people feel that they need the procedural stuff to be able to train social skills without getting bored.
Freakonomics had a section where they came to the conclusion that good parenting isn’t about what actions a parent completes but about what kind of a person the parent happens to be.
Exposure to social interactions changes yourself. If you happen to lack social skills it means that you have to go out of your comfort zone.
It your choice whether you are willing to pay the price.
There are two issues that you have to separate.
1) Thinking that you are better than you are because you have read a lot.
2) Choicing to spend your time on reading.
You could rephrase 1) as being more optimistic than it’s waranted. Sometimes that’s damaging but at other time it might help you to get going.
1) isn’t that big of a problem when you consider other alternative ways of spending the same amount of time like watching television.
If you however don’t spend enough time on actually doing things the problem happens to be procrastination and you just intellectuallise it as a different problem.
Knowing a lot about programming also gives you the benefit of better being able to mentally take the identity of being a progammer.
Humans have the need to feel identity.
I don’t think that you have reason to assume that the short term effects are the same effects as the long term effects.
We behave on average like the person we think we are. A single good action doesn’t result in updating our self identity and it’s easier to just update the other actions to be the person you think you are in the short term.
In the long term however, doing good things changes your self image in a way where you think that you are the kind of person who does good things.
If you lack good social skills the amount you talk while you are in bars is lower than it would be if you have good skills.
If you talk less there’s more time to be bored.
If you dance more you are also less likely to be bored.
Science involves confronting
our ‘absolute stupidity’. That kind of stupidity is an existential
fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown.
Martin A. Schwartz
Actually make written down predictions about the future.
If you don’t make real written down predictions you will never know how bad you are at predicting the world around you.
It’s not really that there’s much time involved.
Let’s say you are waiting in line in the supermarket to pay. It costs you no additional time to take a paper and note down an estimated amount of money that you have to pay.
It’s probably rather like quiting smoking. Going through life while being fuzzy about your expectations is just easier than making predictions.
However all that talk about cognitive biases doesn’t do much when you just gather knowledge but don’t change any of your deep seated habits.
What is the source for the claim that two thirds of scientific studies that are published in prestigious medical journals fail to replicate?
In twenty years the price of storage will have fallen enough that some library has no problem storing a copy.
Let pubmed store the copy for medicine data.
If you want medical researchers to publish all data they use in their experiments, you have to say good bye to privacy.
If you have enough data about the individual patients who entered a study on AIDS drugs you will be able to data mine whether your friend Joe has been one of the patients in the study.
Are we willing to live in a world where all medical data about everyone is in the public domain?
The trade offs are enormous but there isn’t much broad discussion about the question in the mainstream.
If you bet on future bets, there’s incentive to manipulate some bets.
Maybe the wiki system should have a special area for each article where supplementary material can be posted?
But there still quite a difference between claiming that 1⁄3 or 2⁄3 of randomized studies are wrong.
It’s ironic that you use a number for which you don’t know your source in an essay to recommend that public always release all their data.
Living by one’s own standards is always hard when you are a skeptic ;)
People can behave strangly under pressure when they don’t want to except reality. If you were never in a situation which such pressure it’s hard to estimate your own reactions to it.
The principled position is to read the arguments in favor of non-guilt first because we generally believe in the presumptions of innocence and therefore should set up our minds with a bias to innocence rather than a bias to guilt when you have to have a bias but can’t control it.
There something like a TV bias. In TV shows there often physical evidence at a crime scene that’s needed for the narrative of the story.
In real life there often isn’t a lot of physical evidence.
That bias is strong enough to let some prospectors ask jurors about how much they watched shows like CSI to select jurors that don’t believe that there has to be physical evidence.
To me it seems you are a victim of the bias that real life crime scenes look like TV crime scenes.
This simply shows that it’s very important to get your priors right.
The fact that human reasoning isn’t optimal implies in no way that the intelligently designed algorithm of Bayesian reasoning is better.
There’a no person who plays chess on a good level while employing Bayesian reasoning.
In Go Bayesian reasoning performs even worse. A good Go player makes some of his move simply because he appreciate their beauty and without having “rational” reasons for them.
Our brain is capable of doing very complex pattern matching that allows the best humans to be better at a large variety of tasks than computers which use rule based algorithms.